http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
I ALWAYS get a tingle of excitement
when Bob Woodward writes
something, because it always
signifies more than it says.

A
Woodward article is a coded
message, not merely reportage.
Indeed, given his astonishing
record of creative writing - an
"interview" with CIA Director
William Casey at a time when
Casey was incapable of speech,
and another "conversation" with an
Israeli official that was only
published after his death, when no
denial or correction could be
issued, and yet another story
published under his editorial
supervision that featured the
activities of a person who did not
even exist - it is generally best to
concentrate on the political
message.

Sometimes he is used as
a transmission belt from top
policymakers (his book on the
Gulf War was in essence Colin
Powell's view of the events) or
disgruntled underlings ("Deep Throat" of Watergate), while
on other occasions he advances his own political causes.

Thus, his Sunday scoop in the Washington Post, according
to which President Bush has authorized a "finding" that
permits American forces in Afghanistan to kill Osama bin
Laden, was particularly interesting. It may well be true that
the president issued a finding, but it probably wasn't
necessary. As Woodward points out, American forces in
battle are entitled to take any and all action necessary to
protect themselves, or to advance their mission, and given bin
Laden's track record, he is certainly a legitimate target.

A
"finding," a legal document that entitles American officials to
take actions that would otherwise be forbidden, might be
required for a specific clandestine operation by CIA targeting
bin Laden, but, according to Clinton's last NSC adviser,
Sandy Berger, they had already found a way to do that, and
had in fact subcontracted the assassination to someone else.
If that is true - and Woodward doesn't mention it - then
the legal authorization was already in place, and Bush didn't
have to take such a step.

So why was Woodward told about a "finding"? The article
reads as if the information came from an interview with Vice
President Cheney, which would suggest that the White House
wants us to know, in advance, that the administration has
taken careful steps to ensure that we are within the letter of
the law to go after bin Laden. This may someday become an
important matter, either before some insane congressional
committee (like the Church and Pike committees that started
the long list of legislation that crippled our intelligence
community in the 1960s), or one of the various international
tribunals that now assert their right to put anyone in the world
on trial for "war crimes."

So far, so good. But then Woodward treats us to a repetition
of some of his personal theories about the recent past, above
all, the Reagan years. He asserts that Iran-Contra "involved
secret arms sales to Iran and the illegal diversion of profits
from those sales to the contra rebels supported by the CIA in
Nicaragua." There were certainly secret arms sales to Iran,
but the diversion of profits to the contras was not illegal. Not
a single person was ever indicted, let alone convicted, of such
a crime. Woodward here is advancing a personal political
agenda instead of accepting the findings of one of the longest
and most costly investigations in American history.

The
diversion was stupid, but it wasn't illegal. He then claims, as
he has in the past, that CIA Director Bill Casey colluded with
the Saudis to organize an assassination attempt against the
leader of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, a claim I have
never believed, but which fits nicely into the theory that the
Reagan presidency was rife with illegal activity.

The distortion of the past is a serious matter, because it
greatly affects policy decisions now and in the future, and to
portray Iran-Contra as a criminal endeavor instead of a
policy blunder helps convince other policymakers to avoid
risky undertakings, and, of course, it slimes Ronald Reagan,
which is in keeping with the politics of publications such as
the Washington Post.

Indeed, there is now a generation of
journalists who constantly rewrite history in an effort to
discredit conservative leaders, and they are proud of their
mission, whatever the consequences for the national interest.
Loren Jenkins, the senior foreign editor for National Public
Radio, recently bragged to a Chicago Tribune columnist, "I
don't represent the government. I represent history,
information, what happened."

Loren Jenkins does indeed represent history, albeit a falsified
version of it. Back in 1982, he won a Pulitzer Prize for
reporting that he had watched while Israeli troops led
Lebanese Christian forces into the "refugee camps" of Shabra
and Shatila, where Palestinians were massacred. The
problem with that Pulitzer was that Jenkins could not have
witnessed it, because it did not happen. An exhaustive Israeli
investigation concluded that General Ariel Sharon held
"indirect responsibility" for the massacre, because he should
have known it would happen, and should have prevented it.
There was no evidence that he, or any other Israeli officer,
had overseen the operation and actively abetted it, as Jenkins
claimed.

"The best reporting is getting to a place and assessing it
yourself," Jenkins tell us, and warns that the military "never tell
you the truth." Frankly, I'd rather listen to Don
Rumsfeld.